
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38313666
92016
10.26603/001c.92016
Original Research
Workload Comparison of Contemporary Interval Throwing Programs and a Novel Optimized Program for Baseball Pitchers
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-3658
Dowling Brittany 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8959-8376
Brusalis Christopher M 3
Streepy John T 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9835-2316
Hodakowski Alexander 4
Pauley Patrick J 1
Heidloff Dave 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8662-3131
Garrigues Grant E 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9875-2769
Verma Nikhil N 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-8749
Fleisig Glenn S 5
1 Midwest Orthopaedics at RUSH
2 Rush University Medical Center https://ror.org/01j7c0b24
3 Hospital for Special Surgery https://ror.org/03zjqec80
4 Rush University Medical College
5 American Sports Medicine Institute https://ror.org/037mmnn19
Corresponding Author: Brittany Dowling, MS Brittany.Dowling@rushortho.com 1611 W Harrison St, Chicago IL 60612 708.492.5782
1 2 2024
2024
19 2 176188
18 9 2023
16 12 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

In the rehabilitation of injured baseball pitchers, there is lack of consensus on how to guide a player back to pitching. It is unknown how different contemporary interval throwing programs (ITPs) progress in the amount of throwing workload.

Purposes

To 1) evaluate three prominent ITPs commonly employed in baseball pitcher rehabilitation and assess whether these ITPs produce training loads that increase in a controlled, graduated manner and 2) devise an ITP that produced training loads which increased steadily over time.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study

Methods

Three publicly available ITPs from prominent sports medicine institutions were analyzed. Elbow varus torque per throw was calculated from a 2nd order polynomial regression based upon a relationship between recorded torque measurements and throwing distance measured from a database of 111,196 throws. The relative rate of workload increase was measured as an acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR). For each ITP, throw counts, daily/acute/chronic workloads, and ACWR were calculated and plotted over time. Finally, an original ITP was devised based upon a computational model that gradually increases ACWR over time and finished with an optimal chronic workload.

Results

Each ITP exhibited a unique progression of throwing distances, quantities, and days to create different workload profiles. The three ITPs had throwing schedules ranging from 136 days to 187 days, ACWR spiked above or fell below a literature-defined “safe” range (i.e. 0.7 – 1.3) 19, 21, and 23 times. A novel ITP, predicated on a 146-day schedule and with a final chronic workload of 14.2, was designed to have no spikes outside of the safe range.

Conclusion

Existing ITPs widely utilized for rehabilitation of baseball pitchers exhibit significantly inconsistent variation in the rate of throwing load progression. Computational modeling may facilitate more incremental workload progression in ITPs, thereby reducing injury during rehabilitation and more efficiently condition a pitcher for return to competition.

Level of Evidence

3b

elbow torque
rehabilitation
load management
flat-ground
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Despite continued improvements in the understanding of the overhead throwing motion, injuries to the upper extremities of baseball pitchers continue to rise across all levels of play.1–4 Efforts to return pitchers to their pre-injury level of performance remains a critical, yet challenging task for sports medicine physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, and other rehabilitation specialists. Successful rehabilitation of baseball pitchers relies on a gradual building of strength, flexibility, and endurance to meet the demands of competition. With or without surgical intervention, an interval throwing program (ITP) remains the cornerstone by which throwing athletes systematically return.5 Once a pitcher is cleared by medical staff, he may then pursue his competitive training (long-toss, weighted balls, bullpen sessions, etc.) and pitching in games.

Traditional ITPs have relied on a generic, standardized prescription of throwing activities that change in volume, distance, and effort exerted over a fixed timeframe.6 The distance, volume, and intensity of throws are progressively overloaded to gradually expose the pitcher to mechanical stress, resulting in tissue adaptation to the increased demands of throwing.7 In general, an ITP is comprised of a flat-ground (sometimes referred to as long-toss) progression with increasing distances starting somewhere from 30 ft to 60 ft out to 120 ft. After completing the flat-ground progression asymptomatically, the pitcher transitions to pitching from the mound at regulation distances (60.5 ft) with graduated intensities, often starting at 50% effort. Some ITPs have prescribed pitchers to throw off the mound at reduced distances of 45 ft before transitioning to the full 60.5 ft.

Recent advancements in the assessment of throwing biomechanics have scrutinized how factors such as throwing distance and ball velocity impact stresses experienced at the shoulder and elbow.8,9 Biomechanical metrics, such as elbow varus torque, offer objective and potentially more accurate data about training loads in which pitchers experience. For example, Melugin et al10 demonstrated that a reduction in perceived effort did not correlate with the same percent reduction in ball velocity and elbow varus torque causing variability in predicted workloads. Metrics, such as the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR), employ biomechanical parameters to evaluate whether training loads experienced by a rehabilitating athlete occur in a graduated manner.11,12 Previous research investigating ACWR has reported increased injury risk occurs when the workload ratio either exceeds 1.3 or drops below 0.7.13–16 Together, biomechanical data and objective metrics for training loads afford an opportunity to optimize ITPs to avoid excessive variations in training loads and, potentially, avoid setbacks and recurrent injury during rehabilitation.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate three prominent ITPs frequently utilized among rehabilitating baseball pitchers and assess whether contemporary ITPs produce training loads that increase in a controlled, graduated manner. It was hypothesized that ITPs commonly employed by baseball pitchers would have excessive variation in training workloads that sometimes produce ACWR outside the safe range of 0.7 - 1.3. Therefore, a secondary aim of the study was to devise an ITP that produced training loads which increased steadily over time, thereby reducing the potential risk of re-injury during rehabilitation and more efficiently condition a pitcher for return to competition.

METHODS

Interval Throwing Programs (ITPs)

Interval throwing program protocols were identified at three sports medicine institutions affiliated with Major League Baseball. Individual ITPs were selected based on their public and academic prominence pertaining to the treatment of professional baseball pitchers.17,18 The selected ITPs are among the most utilized in the rehabilitation process for return to throw for pitchers. The three throwing programs were from the American Sports Medicine Institute (Program A, Supplement 1), the Kerlan-Jobe Institute (Program B, Supplement 2), and Hospital for Special Surgery (Program C, Supplement 3), respectively.

Calculation of Elbow Varus Torque and Workload

In order to determine elbow varus torque with each throw, data were mined from Motus Global’s MotusBaseball sensor (now Driveline Pulse; Driveline Baseball, Kent, WA) database. Previous research has shown that the Motus sensor’s measures correlate well with 3D motion capture laboratory measures19,20 and provides precise and reproducible data.10,21 A total of 238,611 anonymized flat-ground throws were extracted from one NCAA-Division 1 level team over the course of two years. These throws were taken by healthy college pitchers (n=34, 186.02 ± 7.3 cm, 89.4 ± 10.8 kg). Of these, 111,196 flat-ground throws were tagged by distance, ranging from 30 ft and 300 ft. Distance categories with over 1,000 throws per distance were used in the model. A 2nd order polynomial regression created a relationship between throwing distance (x in ft) and peak elbow varus torque (Nm) (Equation 1).

(1)τvalgus=−0.000579x2+0.194x+36.230;r2=0.986

The workload of each throw (WLThrow) was computed by exponentially weighting the elbow varus torque value to 1.3 (Equation 2). This exponential weight was chosen based on NASA’s ‘Daily Load Stimulus’ research regarding mechanical load and gravity.22

(2)WLThrow=τvalgus1.3

Daily workloads (WLDay) were computed as the total sum of workload of each throw (Equation 3).

(3)WLDay=∑Throw=1Throw=nWLThrow

Acute workloads (WLAcute) were computed as a rolling 7-day average of daily workload (Equation 4).13

(4)WLAcute=17∑day=1day=7WLday

Chronic workloads (WLChronic) were computed as a rolling 28-day average of daily workload (Equation 5).13

(5)WLChronic=128∑Day=1Day=28WLDay

Finally, the ACWR was computed as the acute workload divided by the chronic workload (Equation 6).

(6)ACWR=WLAcuteWLChronic

Workloads (i.e. daily, acute, chronic, and ACWR) were built from the prescribed throwing for each program. Previous research investigating ACWR has reported increased injury risk occurs when the workload ratio either exceeds 1.3 or drops below 0.7.13–15 Therefore, the ACWR ‘safe’ range was coded as anything between 0.8-1.3.

Each ITP consisted of various sequential phases; a pitcher must complete each phase pain-free before progressing to the next phase. In Program A, pitchers were instructed to throw every other day and perform each phase two times before advancing to the next phase. Program B instructed pitchers to throw three to four times per week. To account for this, one week was coded throwing three times and the next week was throwing four times; this alternated between the two for the whole program. Additionally, phases in Program B were separated by month without specifying how many times each phase should be repeated, therefore it was assumed four weeks of throwing for each month. Program C instructed players to throw every three days and to complete each phase three times before progressing to the next one.

While an ideal ITP would explicitly state which days to throw, the number of throws per day, and clearly defined distances, this exact information was not available in each of the three programs. Program C was the only program to explicitly state the number of throws to perform at each phase with specific distances. Program A provided a range of throws starting at 75 ft and varied 5-15 throws at each phase after. Program B had a range of throws for each phase and varied 5-20 throws and a range of throwing distance (i.e. 40-45 ft, 60-70 ft). To standardize the number of throws for each phase in the programs that did not have an exact number, the median of the provided range was used. For example, if the program stated to throw 20-25 times at a given distance, the throws coded were 23. In order to standardize Program B that used distance ranges, the distance closest to the 15 ft increments used in the two other programs was used (i.e. 40-45 ft, 45 ft distance was used).

For all ITPs, throws in the flat-ground progression were instructed to be thrown as ‘catch’ and not meant as maximal effort throwing. These flat-ground throws were not to be thrown with a pitching motion and all were programmed using the flat-ground polynomial regression torques. All programs allowed crow-hop/shuffle at longer distances (starting at 75 ft), which was accounted for in the polynomial regression. Program C did not prescribe warm-up throws. Program A stated warm-up throws should start at 30-45 ft and then progress to the starting distance for the phase, but the quantity of throws was not provided for these ‘warm-ups’. Program B prescribed 10 throws at 40 ft as a ‘warm-up’ and ‘cool down’. In order to standardize across Program A and C, it was assumed ‘warm-up’ throws to be 5 throws at each distance – increasing by 15 ft until reaching the starting throwing distance for that day. Additionally, if a program stated throws could be taken if the athlete desired, then 5 throws at that distance (similar to warm-up throws) were coded. Program C provided an optional three weeks of flat-ground (phases 13-16), this was not coded as they were considered optional.

All three programs delineated throwing intensity during the mound phase (e.g., 20 throws at 75%). Asking pitchers to throw with graded effort is a difficult and sometimes inaccurate task. Previous research has shown that there was not a proportionate decrease in ball velocity or elbow varus torque to perceived effort when pitching off the mound.23,24 Melugin et al10 reported that when pitchers were asked to throw 50% effort, elbow varus torque was 86% of maximum torque and when throwing 75% effort, elbow varus torque was 93% of maximum torque. In order to codify for mound intensity, the average 100% effort torque from Melguin et al’s study (Tmaximum= 74 Nm) was used and a linear regression model was built using the three efforts and resulting torques (Equation 7). This allowed for the differentiation of prescribed intensity and to build the resulting torque for each program.

(7)τactual=τmaximum(0.28∗(perceivedintensity)+72)100

Lastly, two programs (Program A and B) prescribed off-speed pitches when the pitcher was close to resuming game throwing, whereas Program C did not specifically differentiate between pitch types. Previous research has shown that resultant loads in the throwing arm are similar for the fastball and curveball in pitchers.25–27 Thus, pitch types were not differentiated and fastball elbow varus torque was used for the workload calculations.

Model ITP for Optimizing Work Load Progression

Using the results of the three ITPs, a novel computationally-optimized workload ITP model was created (Supplement 4). This model was developed to maintain an optimal ACWR, while also steadily increasing the chronic workload throughout the throwing program. The novel model utilized non-linear throw count increments, while steadily increasing throw counts and distances with variability in the daily amounts. In current programs, cyclic loading and consistent off-days in the protocols (i.e. throwing every other day) led to detrimental ACWR. To address this, variable off days were implemented with throwers not throwing on consecutive days over what would be considered a “weekend” until week 16 where a light throwing day was implemented. Throwing volume was gradually built up along with increased throw distance, until 120 ft throwing distance was reached; then the protocol transitioned into throwing from the mound. The mound progression was gradually built up with pitch counts to reach an optimal chronic workload of 13.8.13 The last week of the program’s mound days were delineated as live pitching sessions where players were allowed to pitch to a hitter but still have constrained pitch counts.

RESULTS

Each ITP exhibited a unique progression of throwing distances, quantities, and days to create different workload profiles. The chronic workload in the denominator of ACWR increases during the first 28 days, causing all four programs to have large spikes in ACWR early in this initial period.

Program A consisted of a 136-day schedule. The first 72 days were the flat-ground phase and included 24 days of throwing (Figure 1). The final 64 days were the mound phase and included 22 days of throwing. The program finished with a chronic workload of 15.0. During the program, there were 19 times the ACWR spiked above or below the safe range.

191852 Figure 1. Throwing workload characteristics of interval throwing Program A.

Acute:Chronic workload ratio over the 136-day program; (B) Calculated chronic throwing workload; (C) Daily number of throws performed in ITP. The colors on the graphs represent deviations away from the optimal chronic workload of 15 (green), ± 1 standard deviation (yellow), ± 2 standard deviation (orange), and ± 3 standard deviation (red). The grey band on figure A represents the ACWR ‘safe’ range of 0.7-1.3.

Program B consisted of a 157-day schedule (Figure 2). A total of 56 out of 111 days were spent throwing in the flat-ground progression. The mound progression consisted of 23 throwing days out of 46 total days. The program finished with a chronic workload of 13.0. During the program there were 21 times the ACWR spiked above or below the ‘safe’ range.

191853 Figure 2. Throwing workload characteristics of interval throwing Program B.

Acute:Chronic workload ratio over the 157-day program; (B) Calculated chronic throwing workload; (C) Daily number of throws performed in ITP

The colors on the graphs represent the deviations away from the optimal chronic workload of 15 (green), ± 1 standard deviation (yellow), ± 2 standard deviation (orange), and ± 3 standard deviation (red). The grey band on figure A represents the ACWR ‘safe’ range of 0.7-1.3.

Program C consisted of a 187-day schedule (Figure 3). There were 36 throwing days in the 106 days of the flat-ground progression. The mound progression consisted of 28 throwing days out of 81 total days. The program finished with a chronic workload of 8.4. During the program there were 23 times the ACWR spiked above or fell below the ‘safe’ range.

191854 Figure 3. Throwing workload characteristics of interval throwing Program C.

Acute:Chronic workload ratio over the 187-day program; (B) Calculated cumulative throwing workload; (C) Daily number of throws performed in ITP. The colors on the graphs represent the deviations away from the optimal chronic workload of 15 (green), ± 1 standard deviation (yellow), ± 2 standard deviation (orange), and ± 3 standard deviation (red). The grey band on figure A represents the ACWR ‘safe’ range of 0.7-1.3.

Novel Interval Throwing Program to Optimize Workload Progression

The newly modeled optimized ITP consisted of a 146-day schedule (Figure 4). The features of the optimized ITP were reverse-engineered using computational modeling to derive a graduated increase in ACWR. There were 33 days of throwing within the 77 days of the flat-ground progression. The mound progression consisted of 37 throwing days out of 70 total days. The program finished with a chronic workload of 14.2. The program was built so there were no spikes in ACWR once 28 days of throwing was accomplished.

191855 Figure 4. Throwing workload characteristics of interval throwing Optimized Workload Protocol.

Acute:Chronic workload ratio over the 146-day program; (B) Calculated chronic throwing workload; (C) Daily number of throws performed in ITP. The colors on the graphs represent the deviations away from the optimal chronic workload of 15 (green), ± 1 standard deviation (yellow), ± 2 standard deviation (orange), and ± 3 standard deviation (red). The grey band on figure A represents the ACWR ‘safe’ range of 0.7-1.3.

DISCUSSION

There are a plethora of ITPs circulating in the baseball community, as orthopedic surgeons often utilize unique ITPs for their recovering pitchers. ITPs have traditionally not been based on relevant physiologic metrics like workload (acute, chronic, and ACWR) and instead on anecdotal, clinician-directed experiences. The principal finding from this study is that several prominent, contemporary ITPs utilized by injured baseball pitchers confer inconsistent progression of throwing workloads.

A recent study emphasized the dramatic variability in rehabilitation and throwing programs after ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLr) surgery.28 Each program varied in its instructions, number of days to complete the program, distance, volume, intensity, mechanics, and pitch type. In a more recent study, Griffith et al29 reported significant variability between 717 professional pitchers undergoing rehabilitation after UCLr and the timing of throwing progressions varied widely. Accounting for individual variability, pain, recovery, and adherence to the exact program is virtually impossible for all programs. The variability found in these studies, as well as in the present analysis, highlights the potential for optimizing rehabilitation programs based on objective metrics. In turn, a newly devised ITP modeled to reduce the variability in workload may reduce the risk of set-back or recurrent injury by providing a steady incremental increase of tissue loading during throwing rehabilitation.

This study’s findings rely upon ACWR as a surrogate marker for evaluating how ITPs progress baseball pitchers in their rehabilitation. Increased ACWR has been linked to increased risk of suffering a time loss injury across a variety of sports.11 Moreover, Gabbett et al30 demonstrated that the correlation between higher ACWR and injury risk was consistent across multiple methods of calculating ACWR. The present study’s application of ACWR builds upon prior work assessing performance progression in other sports10 including soccer,14 rugby,31 gymnastics,32 and cricket,33 all of which advocate for maintaining consistent ACWR ranges. When building the ACWR, this study used the assumption that at the beginning of the ITP, no throws had been completed for the previous 28 days. However, because of large variations in rehabilitation protocols for UCLr before throwing a baseball even takes place, this assumption may or may not be correct. There has been a recent emphasis for pitchers to perform plyometric training in rehabilitation which can result in added elbow varus torque to the throwing arm before starting their ITP.34 If plyometric training is being performed during rehabilitation, then it is possible that throwers are not starting at 0 for workload on Day 1 of the ITP and the ACWR would be altered at the beginning stages of throwing. However, the only true way for the throwing arm to experience the same forces and torques during the throwing motion is to actually throw a ball; therefore, this assumption is reasonable. It is hard to know if this ‘skyrocket’ in ACWR during the first 28 days of throwing is useful or accurate; but caution should be taken during the first month of throwing.

Within baseball, higher ACWR has been associated with increased injury risk among varsity high school pitchers.13 In a cohort of 18 high school pitchers, whose throws were tracked for six months using a wearable MotusTHROW™ sensor, five out of six throwing-related injuries occurred in pitchers whose ACWR exceed 1.27.13 Pitchers whose workload exceeded this threshold value exhibited an injury risk nearly 15-times that of those below this value. In our study, a pitcher who simulated Programs A, B, and C exceeded this ACWR threshold 18-23 times starting from Day 28; while our optimized program was created to not deviate from the safe ACWR range of 0.7-1.3. Extrapolation from prior data of ACWR threshold values on varying levels of baseball pitchers is needed and further study is necessary to delineate optimal ACWR values in baseball pitchers. Nonetheless, the present data align with the available literature suggesting that existing ITPs are not optimized to load the throwing arm of a rehabilitating pitcher.

Gradual building of the chronic workload throughout an ITP is vital to help mitigate spikes in ACWR when there are high acute workload days. In this way, high chronic workloads are thought to be protective. In middle-school aged athletes, it was reported that high chronic workloads were associated with reduced risk of injury.35 This protective effect of chronic workload has also been reported in both rugby and cricket.31,33 However, limited studies in baseball link workload based off each throw and injury. In high school players, Mehta et al36 reported players with higher chronic workloads were associated with increased risk of injury compared to players with lower chronic workloads. In-season chronic workloads have been reported in high school pitchers to be between 12-15.36 This is similar in college and professional pitchers, as reported by Motus Global (unpublished). Programs A and B had chronic workloads when the programs finished between 13-15; similar to the Optimized program (Program D) that was built. Program C finished well below the targeted average at 8, even though this program also had the greatest duration of days (187).

Appropriate timing in the implementation of an ITP is crucial to ensure the safe return of a throwing athlete to competition. For example, the minimum duration of time and rehabilitation required before an athlete can safely return to throwing after UCLr has not been determined.37 Many factors can influence the ideal time course for initiating an ITP, such as time from surgery, level of competition, time of season, surgeon’s preference, and successful progression through physical therapy. In a recent review, Griffith et al38 included 14 studies tracking return to sport (RTS) after UCLr and reported time from surgery was the most common RTS criterion used and was reported in 100% of the studies. However, there was no consensus on how much time was adequate for rehabilitation before returning, with time frames ranging from 4-16 months.38 Conversely, in a separate systematic review the most common return to play criterion was completion of an ITP (87%; 13 out of 15 studies) and found players started the ITP on average 16.7 weeks after surgery (range 12-18 weeks).39 The optimal wait period following injury or surgery to initiate an ITP is likely highly individualized. We believe objective testing is vital to proper progression into starting a throwing program. In a recent study, 25% of competitive pitchers did not pass an objective return to throw protocol at the time of clearance by their surgeon.40 The study also reported lack of plyometric exercises in the rehabilitation process as the most common reason for failing their return to throw protocol. Measures such as range of motion, grip strength, arm strength, and endurance should be used to properly progress a pitcher into throwing; however, further investigations can help elucidate specific attributes of injury, surgery, and/or objective benchmarks to better guide athletes on when to initiate an ITP.

Interval throwing programs use distance as a measure of intensity in lieu of prescribed efforts, radar guns, or wearable technology. While some programs explicitly state to throw with a certain amount of intensity or effort, others do not. Pitchers are frequently unable to accurately assess their throwing effort or intensity, particularly when they are rehabilitating from an injury. This becomes more of an obstacle once a player gets to the mound progression as some programs instruct players to throw with as little as 50% effort. This is not a feasible, or even an easy, task for a pitcher to do. When pitchers were asked to throw with decreased intensity, they did not decrease elbow varus torque or ball velocity at the same rate as their perceived intensity.23 Anecdotally, players do not like throwing at dramatically reduced efforts and find it difficult to get the ball to the desired target. Reduced efforts also cause deleterious changes in throwing mechanics and timing of the throw.24,41 The Optimized Protocol was created so that pitchers throw with ‘intent’ and build up their workload during the flat-ground progression, so that once they step on the mound during the second part of the program, their effort does not need to be decreased.

Concern for potentially volatile changes in tissue stress among prevailing ITPs stimulated the design of a novel ITP aimed to deliver appropriate, progressive workloads to the rehabilitating pitcher. In this model, throwing variables such as throwing frequency, throwing distance, and throwing effort were generated based upon calculated ACWR. The ITP’s design is compatible with emerging biofeedback technologies that allow for real-time monitoring of torques experienced by an individual athlete.42,43 Applying such technology can enable rehabilitation specialists to individualize these programs by modifying quantities of throws, arm speeds, distances, and the relative amount of flat-ground versus mound-based throwing to titrate actual workload. The Optimized Protocol, along with other new rehabilitation tools, require long-term evaluation to determine whether they result in meaningful reductions in injuries as well as effectively prepare the pitcher for return to sport. Nonetheless, the ITP was conceptualized as an individualized and proactive form of rehabilitation that is responsive to objective, real-time biometric data.5 Future innovations in throwing rehabilitation will likely benefit from aiming at this objective.

This study must be considered within the context of its limitations. Rehabilitation of the baseball pitcher following injury is a highly individualized process and the current analyses of both existing and proposed ITPs do not account for how such protocols are implemented and tailored to an individual pitcher. The absolute values of elbow varus torque and workloads calculated in the present analysis were determined using data reported by Melugin et al10 and therefore may vary for pitchers of different size, throwing mechanics, prior injury, etc.44,45 Nonetheless, despite increased emphasis on dynamic, interactive rehabilitation that respond to athlete biofeedback, formalized throwing programs remain a cornerstone of modern rehabilitation and merit further optimization. The provided computational model of throwing workload was predicated on biomechanical studies of elbow varus torque experienced by pitchers at varying distances, effort level, and field surface (flat-ground vs. mound) and may therefore be most applicable to pitchers recovering from elbow-related injuries.46–48 However, further study is needed to evaluate the impact of ITPs on other biomechanical variables, such as shoulder distraction forces and the addition of various pitch types. Interval throwing programs are supposed to enable a pitcher to return to proper throwing mechanics upon completion of the program; however, measuring proper kinematics of the throw are beyond the scope of this study. While the Optimized Protocol was designed to safely ramp pitchers up and maintain ACWR within a safe range, rehabilitating pitchers commonly experience one or more setbacks during the return-to-throw process, causing them to stop throwing or repeat a subset of an ITP. For all programs, the rehabilitation team must recognize and accommodate an ITP to an individual pitcher. In attempts to simulate a set-back, we changed the Optimal Program to have a week repeated once, twice, and three times and there was no change in the ACWR; however, the final chronic number was greater. Additionally, while the codified workload was specific for the throwing arm, other factors such as rate of perceived exertion from previous throwing day, recovery, sleep, nutrition, cumulative physical and mental stress, and hydration likely influence perceived effort and workload in the pitcher. Future investigation is needed to characterize and quantify such variables for implementation into a computational-based ITP. The time intervals for acute (7 days) and chronic (28 days) workloads might be inaccurate for a baseball pitcher starting on a 5-day rotation. There is also concern for the conceptual basis of ACWR and the statistical faults that arise from these calculations.49,50

CONCLUSION

Existing ITPs utilized for rehabilitation of baseball pitchers exhibit wide and inconsistent variation in the rate of throwing load progression. Computational modeling may facilitate more incremental workload progression in ITPs, thereby reducing the risk of injury during rehabilitation and more efficiently condition a pitcher for return to competition.

Supplementary Material

Supplement 1

Supplement 2

Supplement 3

Supplement 4
==== Refs
Arm injury in youth baseball players: a 10-year cohort study Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Shanley Ellen Thigpen Charles A. Boes Nathan Bailey Lane Arnold Amanda Bullock Garrett Kissenberth Michael J. 6 2023
32 6 S106 S111 1058-2746 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.009 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.009 36828286
Analysis of common shoulder injuries in collegiate baseball players The Physician and Sportsmedicine Vargas Luilly Charen Daniel Huang Hsin-Hui Poeran Jashvant Colvin Alexis 2022
50 5 394 399 0091-3847 10.1080/00913847.2021.1934910 10.1080/00913847.2021.1934910 34047242
The most common type, severity, and expected frequency of injuries vary by defensive position in professional baseball players The American Journal of Sports Medicine Carr James B. McElheny Kathryn D. Corrigan Anne Rowe Dana Ma Kevin Curriero Frank C. 28 6 2022
50 9 2534 2541 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465221104490 10.1177/03635465221104490
Injury trends in major league baseball over 18 seasons: 1998-2015 Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) Conte S Camp C L Dines J S 2016
45 3 116 123
Individualizing the throwing progression following injury in baseball pitchers: the past, present, and future Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Hintz Christian Colón Dennis Honnette Danielle Denning Nathan Porras Edwin Willard Justin Diamond Adam Springer Science and Business Media LLC 27 10 2022
15 6 561 569 1935-9748 10.1007/s12178-022-09799-8 10.1007/s12178-022-09799-8 36301515
The science and biomechanics of long-toss Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Calcei Jacob G. Freehill Michael T. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 8 4 2021
14 3 224 231 1935-9748 10.1007/s12178-021-09706-7 10.1007/s12178-021-09706-7 33830422
Development of a distance-based interval throwing program for little league-aged athletes The American Journal of Sports Medicine Axe Michael J. Snyder-Mackler Lynn Konin Jeff G. Strube Michael J. SAGE Publications 9 1996
24 5 594 602 0363-5465 10.1177/036354659602400506 10.1177/036354659602400506 8883678
Biomechanical comparison of baseball pitching and long-toss: implications for training and rehabilitation Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Fleisig Glenn S. Bolt Becky Fortenbaugh Dave Wilk Kevin E. Andrews James R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 5 2011
41 5 296 303 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2011.3568 10.2519/jospt.2011.3568 21212502
Variability in baseball throwing metrics during a structured long-toss program: does one size fit all or should programs be individualized? Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Leafblad Nels D. Larson Dirk R. Fleisig Glenn S. Conte Stan Fealy Stephen A. Dines Joshua S. D’Angelo John Camp Christopher L. SAGE Publications 3 9 2019
11 6 535 542 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738119869945 10.1177/1941738119869945 31478791
Baseball pitchers’ perceived effort does not match actual measured effort during a structured long-toss throwing program The American Journal of Sports Medicine Melugin Heath P. Larson Dirk R. Fleisig Glenn S. Conte Stan Fealy Stephen A. Dines Joshua S. D’Angelo John Camp Christopher L. SAGE Publications 31 5 2019
47 8 1949 1954 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546519850560 10.1177/0363546519850560
Is the acute: chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with risk of time-loss injury in professional team sports? A systematic review of methodology, variables and injury risk in practical situations Sports Medicine Andrade Renato Wik Eirik Halvorsen Rebelo-Marques Alexandre Blanch Peter Whiteley Rodney Espregueira-Mendes João Gabbett Tim J. Springer Science and Business Media LLC 22 6 2020
50 9 1613 1635 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-020-01308-6 10.1007/s40279-020-01308-6
The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarterandharder? British Journal of Sports Medicine Gabbett Tim J BMJ 12 1 2016
50 5 273 280 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788 26758673
Relationship between workload and throwing injury in varsity baseball players Physical Therapy in Sport Mehta Sameer 11 2019
40 66 70 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.001 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.001
The acute:chonic workload ratio in relation to injury risk in professional soccer Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Malone Shane Owen Adam Newton Matt Mendes Bruno Collins Kieran D. Gabbett Tim J. 6 2017
20 6 561 565 1440-2440 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.10.014 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.10.014 27856198
The acute:chronic workload ratio predicts injury: high chronic workload may decrease injury risk in elite rugby league players British Journal of Sports Medicine Hulin Billy T Gabbett Tim J Lawson Daniel W Caputi Peter Sampson John A 2016
50 4 231 236 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094817 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094817 26511006
Has the athlete trained enough to return to play safely? The acute:chronic workload ratio permits clinicians to quantify a player's risk of subsequent injury British Journal of Sports Medicine Blanch Peter Gabbett Tim J 2016
50 8 471 475 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095445 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095445 26701923
Meet the 10 super surgeons tasked with putting MLB’s broken arms back together | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report 2023-3-18 https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2065296-meet-the-super-surgeons-tasked-with-putting-mlbs-broken-arms-back-together
Training background and characteristics of NFL, MLB, and NBA team physicians Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Young Matthew W. Plummer Hillary A. Fleisig Glenn S. 1 11 2022
10 11 23259671221137332 2325-9671 10.1177/23259671221137333 10.1177/23259671221137333 36425009
The relationship of throwing arm mechanics and elbow varus torque: within-subject variation for professional baseball pitchers across 82,000 throws The American Journal of Sports Medicine Camp Christopher L. Tubbs Travis G. Fleisig Glenn S. Dines Joshua S. Dines David M. Altchek David W. Dowling Brittany SAGE Publications 14 8 2017
45 13 3030 3035 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546517719047 10.1177/0363546517719047
Exploring wearable sensors as an alternative to marker-based motion capture in the pitching delivery PeerJ Boddy Kyle J. Marsh Joseph A. Caravan Alex Lindley Kyle E. Scheffey John O. O’Connell Michael E. PeerJ 24 1 2019
7 e6365 2167-8359 10.7717/peerj.6365 10.7717/peerj.6365 30697497
Assessment of elbow torque and other parameters during the pitching motion: comparison of fastball, curveball, and change-up Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery Makhni Eric C. Lizzio Vincent A. Meta Fabien Stephens Jeffrey P. Okoroha Kelechi R. Moutzouros Vasilios 3 2018
34 3 816 822 0749-8063 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.045 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.045 29289396
The enhanced daily load stimulus model to quantify the mechanical load and bone mineral density changes experienced by crew members on the international space station Gene K Gopalakrisltrtan R Kuklis M Maender C Rice A Kavanagh P https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090034155/downloads/20090034155.pdf
Biomechanical comparison of the interval throwing program and baseball pitching: upper extremity loads in training and rehabilitation The American Journal of Sports Medicine Slenker Nicholas R. Limpisvasti Orr Mohr Karen Aguinaldo Arnel Elattrache Neal S. SAGE Publications 24 3 2014
42 5 1226 1232 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546514526152 10.1177/0363546514526152
Biomechanical basis of interval throwing programs for baseball pitchers: a systematic review International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Dias Travis Lerch Benjamin G. Slowik Jonathan S. Wilk Kevin E. Andrews James R. Cain E. Lyle Fleisig Glenn S. 2 10 2023
18 5 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.87811 10.26603/001c.87811 37795321
Kinetic comparison among the fastball, curveball, change-up, and slider in collegiate baseball pitchers The American Journal of Sports Medicine Fleisig Glenn S. Kingsley David S. Loftice Jeremy W. Dinnen Kenneth P. Ranganathan Rajiv Dun Shouchen Escamilla Rafael F. Andrews James R. SAGE Publications 3 2006
34 3 423 430 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546505280431 10.1177/0363546505280431 16260466
Biomechanical comparisons among fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup pitch types and between balls and strikes in professional baseball pitchers The American Journal of Sports Medicine Escamilla Rafael F. Fleisig Glenn S. Groeschner Dave Akizuki Ken SAGE Publications 2 10 2017
45 14 3358 3367 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546517730052 10.1177/0363546517730052
Differences among fastball, curveball, and change-up pitching biomechanics across various levels of baseball Sports Biomechanics Fleisig Glenn S. Laughlin Walter A. Aune Kyle T. Cain E. Lyle Dugas Jeffrey R. Andrews James R. 2 4 2016
15 2 128 138 1476-3141 10.1080/14763141.2016.1159319 10.1080/14763141.2016.1159319
Rehabilitation variability after elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Lightsey Harry M. Trofa David P. Sonnenfeld Julian J. Swindell Hasani W. Makhni Eric C. Ahmad Christopher S. 3 2019
7 3 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967119833363 10.1177/2325967119833363 30937318
Correlation of rehabilitation and throwing program milestones with outcomes after ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: An analysis of 717 professional baseball pitchers The American Journal of Sports Medicine Griffith Timothy B. Conte Stan Poulis George C. Diamond Adam D’Angelo John Camp Christopher L. SAGE Publications 9 5 2022
50 7 1990 1996 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465221093995 10.1177/03635465221093995 35532953
To couple or not to couple? For acute:chronic workload ratios and injury risk, does it really matter? International Journal of Sports Medicine Gabbett Tim J. Hulin Billy Blanch Peter Chapman Paul Bailey David 10 7 2019
40 9 597 600 0172-4622 10.1055/a-0955-5589 10.1055/a-0955-5589
Low chronic workload and the acute:chronic workload ratio are more predictive of injury than between-match recovery time: a two-season prospective cohort study in elite rugby league players British Journal of Sports Medicine Hulin Billy T Gabbett Tim J Caputi Peter Lawson Daniel W Sampson John A BMJ 5 2 2016
50 16 1008 1012 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095364 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095364
Training load and recovery during a pre-olympic season in professional rhythmic gymnasts Journal of Athletic Training Debien Paula Barreiros Miloski Bernardo Werneck Francisco Zacaron Timoteo Thiago Ferreira Ferezin Camila Filho Maurício Gattás Bara Gabbett Tim J. 30 7 2020
55 9 977 983 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-402.19 10.4085/1062-6050-402.19 32731261
Spikes in acute workload are associated with increased injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers British Journal of Sports Medicine Hulin Billy T Gabbett Tim J Blanch Peter Chapman Paul Bailey David Orchard John W 2014
48 8 708 712 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092524 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092524 23962877
Interval sport programs: guidelines for baseball, tennis, and golf Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Reinold Michael M. Wilk Kevin E. Reed Jamie Crenshaw Ken Andrews James R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 6 2002
32 6 293 298 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2002.32.6.293 10.2519/jospt.2002.32.6.293 12061709
Training load and injury among middle school-aged athletes Journal of Athletic Training Albrecht Joseph Biese Kevin M. Bell David R. Schaefer Daniel A. Watson Andrew M. 1 9 2020
55 9 954 959 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-435-19 10.4085/1062-6050-435-19 32991704
Chronic workload, subjective arm health, and throwing injury in high school baseball players: 3-year retrospective pilot study Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Mehta Sameer Tang Sisi Rajapakse Chamith Juzwak Scott Dowling Brittany 2022
14 1 119 126 1941-7381 10.1177/19417381211055142 10.1177/19417381211055142 34781777
Return to play following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction Clinics in Sports Medicine Cain Edward Lyle McGonigle Owen 10 2016
35 4 577 595 0278-5919 10.1016/j.csm.2016.05.004 10.1016/j.csm.2016.05.004
Return-to-sport criteria after upper extremity surgery in athletes—a scoping review, part 2: ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow procedures Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Griffith Rebecca Bolia Ioanna K. Fretes Nickolas Murray Iain R. Meyer John Weber Alexander E. Gamradt Seth C. Petrigliano Frank A. 1 8 2021
9 8 2325-9671 10.1177/23259671211021825 10.1177/23259671211021825 34395685
Return-to-competition criteria after ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Anderson Matthew J.J. Crockatt William K. Mueller John D. Hellwinkel Justin E. Alexander Frank J. Trofa David P. Ahmad Christopher S. 2022
50 4 1157 1165 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465211016839 10.1177/03635465211016839 34181472
Paper 11: Utility of objective testing for initiation of a throwing program following shoulder and elbow surgery in competitive baseball players Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Sgroi Terrance Estrada Jennifer Mcelheny Kathryn Dines Joshua Altchek David Carr James 1 7 2022
10 7 suppl5 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967121s00575 10.1177/2325967121s00575
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of full-effort and partial-effort baseball pitching Fleisig G Zheng N Barrentine S Escamilla R Andrews J Lemak L 1996
151 152
Biomechanical analysis of the throwing athlete and its impact on return to sport Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation Trasolini Nicholas A. Nicholson Kristen F. Mylott Joseph Bullock Garrett S. Hulburt Tessa C. Waterman Brian R. 1 2022
4 1 e83 e91 2666-061X 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.027 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.027 35141540
Using artificial intelligence-enhanced sensing and wearable technology in sports medicine and performance optimisation Sensors Chidambaram Swathikan Maheswaran Yathukulan Patel Kian Sounderajah Viknesh Hashimoto Daniel A. Seastedt Kenneth Patrick McGregor Alison H. Markar Sheraz R. Darzi Ara MDPI AG 13 9 2022
22 18 6920 1424-8220 10.3390/s22186920 10.3390/s22186920 36146263
Influence of pelvic rotation on lower extremity kinematics, elbow varus torque, and ball velocity in professional baseball pitchers Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Dowling Brittany Knapik Derrick M. Luera Micheal J. Garrigues Grant E. Nicholson Gregory P. Verma Nikhil N. 1 11 2022
10 11 2325-9671 10.1177/23259671221130340 10.1177/23259671221130340 36479467
The influence of shoulder abduction and external rotation on throwing arm kinetics in professional baseball pitchers Shoulder & Elbow Manzi Joseph E Dowling Brittany Trauger Nicolas Fu Michael C Hansen Benjamin R Dines Joshua S 2022
14 1 Suppl 90 98 1758-5732 10.1177/17585732211010300 10.1177/17585732211010300 35845618
Role of rotational kinematics in minimizing elbow varus torques for professional versus high school pitchers Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Luera Micheal J. Dowling Brittany Magrini Mitchel A. Muddle Tyler W.D. Colquhoun Ryan J. Jenkins Nathaniel D.M. 1 3 2018
6 3 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967118760780 10.1177/2325967118760780 29581995
Effects of mound versus flat-ground pitching and distance on arm mechanics and elbow torque in high school pitchers Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Dowling Brittany McElheny Kathryn D. Camp Christopher L. Ling Daphne I. Dines Joshua S. 1 12 2020
8 12 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967120969245 10.1177/2325967120969245 33354584
The association of stride length to ball velocity and elbow varus torque in professional pitchers Journal of Sports Sciences Manzi Joseph E. Dowling Brittany Dines Joshua S. Wang Zhaorui Kunze Kyle N. Thacher Ryan McElheny Kathryn L. Carr James B. 9 7 2021
39 23 2658 2664 0264-0414 10.1080/02640414.2021.1949190 10.1080/02640414.2021.1949190 34240663
Acute:chronic workload ratio: conceptual issues and fundamental pitfalls International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Impellizzeri Franco M. Tenan Matthew S. Kempton Tom Novak Andrew Coutts Aaron J. 1 7 2020
15 6 907 913 1555-0265 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0864 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0864
Training load and injury part 2: questionable research practices hijack the truth and mislead well-intentioned clinicians Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Impellizzeri Franco M. Ward Patrick Coutts Aaron J. Bornn Luke McCall Alan Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 10 2020
50 10 577 584 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2020.9211 10.2519/jospt.2020.9211
